The Star. Delivered every evening by 6 o'clock in Hawera, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Opunake, Otakeho, Manutahi, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, and Waverley. MONDAY, MAY 8, 1911. THE ARBITRATION PROPOSALS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXII, Issue LXII, 8 May 1911, Page 4

The Star. Delivered every evening by 6 o'clock in Hawera, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Opunake, Otakeho, Manutahi, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, and Waverley. MONDAY, MAY 8, 1911. THE ARBITRATION PROPOSALS.

—. + __. An enormous meeting has been held at the Guildhall, London, in support of President' Taft's arbitration proposals, and the following motion, proposed by Mr Asquith, was carried unanimously:— "That this meeting welcomes President Taft's proposals, and pledges its support." Twice within the last twelve months President Taft has limned the general features of arbitration proposals more I bold and momentous. than any practi- j cal and prominent statesman has i hitherto ventured upon. Two of his' more recent statements, weighted with pregnant and ' far-reaching consequences, have attracted world-wide attention, and have appealed with especial force to the British people. The first of these statements reads: "Personally, I do not s<je. any reason why

matters of national honor should not | be referred to Courts of Arbitration ' as matters of private or national pro- ' perty are. I know that is going fur- ! ther than most men are willing to go, but I do not see why questions of bonor should not be submitted to tri- ' bunals composed of men of honor who j understand questions of national honor, to abide by their decision as ' well as in other questions of difference ' 1 arising between nations." The second statement is. this: "If we can nego-j tiate and put through private agree- \ i ments with some other nation to abide j by the adjudication of International Arbitration Courts in every issue which cannot be settled by negotia-1 tions, no matter what it involves, whether honor, territory, or money, we shall have made a long step forward by demonstrating that it is possible for two nations at least to establish between them the same system which, through the process of law, has existed between individuals under Government." It may be recalled that fourteen years ago, in 1897, the Governments of Great Britain and of the United States actually signed a Treaty which would have accomplished practically all that President Taft's present proposals desiderate, but that Treaty was rendered null by the action of the U.S. Senate, to the keen regret of the progressive elements in both countries. Hope, however, was not abandoned. President Cleveland asserted that the Treaty 'laid the groundwork for future proceedings which should conduct differences between the two countries in the • atmosphere and realm of reason, of justice, and of neutral conciliation." At the same time, Mr Bayard, the then American Ambassador in England, in making his farewell speech to the peapie of England, laid stress on the fact that such an agreement was possible, and numbered it among the "things which have their roots in the sentiment governing great peoples—things which may be delayed, but which cannot possibly be defeated." Last month, during the discussion in the British House of Commons on the expenditure upon armaments, Sir Edward Grey made a remarkable speech on President Taft's proposals. He welcomed Mr Taft's suggestions, and emphasised especially that "unless public opinion will rise to the level of discussing a proposal of that kind, not with reference to charges of inconsistency, not with reference to what one nation or another is going to gain practically by some agreement, but unless they will rise to the height of discussing it as a great movement in the opinion of the world, it cannot be carried out." Sir Edward foresees that if the burden of armaments goes on increasing by leaps, and bounds in times of peace, as it has done in the last generation, it will become intolerable in time. He thinks that it will lead, not to war, but far more likely to internal revolution—not to nations fighting against each other, but to the revolt of masses of mens against taxation. That is the direction, he said, in which the great countries of the world are tending, and must continue to tend, "until nations do \ what individuals have done—come regard an appeal to the law as the natural course, instead of an appeal to force." The whole question is undoubtedly one which hinges on the growth of public opinion, not in one country alone, but in several countries. If the great masses of the people in all countries rose to the height, not only of discussing the question, as Sir Edward Grey says, "as a great movement of the opinion of the world," but as a fixed determination that war should cease, not merely because of the burden of taxation, but in the cause of kuman brotherhood, it is permissible to hope that President Taft's proposals can no longer be considered,, as theLondon Times last month said they were "visionary and Utopian." Indeed, it is good to notice in the message concerning the Guildhall meeting, which we published some days ago, that the Premier stated his belief that the principles of general arbitration are not Utopian. The proposed treaty, he said, "only meant that war should be ruled out." Mr Balfour, too, laid stress on the idea that the decision of the-whole'matter lies with the" international masses. When laws and treaties were not in advance of public opinion, he believed they would be honorably recognised. He believed the public opinion of England and of the United States was that the time was ripe for an agreement. The fact that the Guildhall meeting was an enormous one where the religious, political, and commercial interests of the nation were fully represented, clearly indicates that the people of England are. keen for the consummation of an Anglo-American treaty. The feeling in the United States, too, has been growing strongly in that direction; and France views the proposals favorably. Coupled with the growing opinions of the best and most thoughtful elements in German life that warfare is a barbarous and futile pursuit, having regard to the present organisation of society and the interdependence of nations, the facts we have cited lead naturally to the conclusion that the civilised peoples of the world are entering upon a path which may eventually lead to disarmament and a universal permanent peace. It is impossible to doubt the soundness of Sir Edward Grey's argument when he says that if two of the greatest nations in the world were to make it clear to the whole world that, by an agreement, under no circumstances were they going to war with each other again, the effect of the example on the world at; large would be one that would be bound to have the most beneficent consequences. For that reason, it will be the earnest hope of all who are actuated by humanitarian principles that the Anglo-American treaty may be speedily consummated. Meanwhile, of course, as both the Premier and Mr Balfour stated, England must not forego precautions for, the stewardship of her world-wide trust.